User talk:Abd

Alternatively, I may not be back at all, more than occasionally, I have no crystal ball, and real life beckons invitingly.

Notice to IP and newly-registered editors

IP and newly registered editors: due to vandalism, this page is sometimes semiprotected, which may prevent you from leaving a message here. If you cannot edit this page, please leave me messages at User talk:Abd/IP.

WELCOME TO Abd TALK

Before reading User talk:Abd

WARNING: Reading the screeds, tomes, or rants of Abd has been known to cause serious damage to mental health. One editor, a long-time Wikipedian, in spite of warnings from a real-life organization dedicated to protecting the planet from the likes of Abd, actually read Abd's comments and thought he understood them.

After reading User talk:Abd

After reading, his behavior became erratic. He proposed WP:PRX and insisted on promoting it. Continuing after he was unblocked, and in spite of his extensive experience, with many thousands of edits,he created a hoax article and actually made a joke in mainspace. When he was unblocked from that, he created a non-notable article on Easter Bunny Hotline, and was finally considered banned. What had really happened? His brain had turned to Dog vomit slime mold (see illustration).

Caution is advised.

Offering you the same as I have WMC

See this discussion for details.

Greetings!

It is good to see you posting. Will you be spending time here after your ban is lifted? I am heading to bed now but ping me back here and let me know how it has been going. Thanks.

--GoRight (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Predicting the future is not my forte, except in very broad and impersonal outlines. I rather doubt I'll be doing much here. I'm topic banned as to cold fusion, which I've spent almost a year learning about ... and it was reading reliable sources (as well as stuff that researchers cite in peer-reviewed papers but which may be disallowed on Wikipedia) that brought me to the position that seems to have resulted in my ban. So the whole experience settled me into a view of Wikipedia that was possible from the outset, I was aware that it had been like this in places and at times. I already knew that to substantial segments of the core "cabal" -- as it was called from the beginning by Jimbo! -- I was unwelcome. ArbComm is far too aligned with that cabal, there are individual arbitrators who are independent, and they clearly find themselves outnumbered and outvoted, with little freedom. ArbComm makes good decisions on a good day, but it is entirely too much, as it has been put, "the Arbitrary Committee." That's what happens when you disavow precedent and place no value in it, when every situation is examined anew and highly personal considerations are applied, by people with little accountability. ArbComm decisions aren't predictable, which makes sense when a situation is new, but not when it has come up over and over!

All this means that ArbComm is very much part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Yet ArbComm itself seems to view itself as unsupported, beseiged, arbitrators have resigned at a hint of controversy instead of simply acknowledging error and moving on, meaning that some of the best have left. I do understand potential solutions to some of the problems, I detailed some of them during my case, and that very effort was viewed as part of the problem, I'm sure it looked to the Arbitration Bored as if this was some POV-pusher trying to make the system favor him. I was bending over backwards to avoid that.

All of this is understandable, given the system or lack of system. It was predictable, though not to a level of certainty. If I'd been certain, I'd not even have tried. Reading Wikipedia Review, there are many editors who have gone through the same wringer. Wikipedia cannot fulfill its mission until the community establishes process that actually resolves disputes instead of trying to bury them by banning people and, through that, effectively, positions. I was a Wikipedia editor, first of all, dedicated to NPOV and consensus as to the "sum of all human knowledge." I was following WP:RS and WP:NOTE and WP:DR, practically religiously. However, consensus requires that positions be asserted clearly until consensus is found. Restricting this without clear guidance on behavioral limits, as distinct from arbitrary post-facto and ad hoc rulings, is fatal to consensus. Consensus does not arise merely from AGF, and WP:AGF is the most violated guideline, though absolutely necessary as a practice. (i.e., "assume" means "appear to assume," "behave as if one assumes," otherwise AGF would be requiring naivete or even thought control).

ArbComm seems to assume that if N editors are upset with M editors, and if N >> M, then the least disruptive process is to ban the minority editors. It could look that way. It doesn't work, because sometimes the M editors are the ones following policy and the N editors are just following their own opinions on the topic, which are then justified by cherry-picking the sources, refusing to allow complete presentation of what is available in reliable source. As I wrote before, this problem is common with Majority POV-pushing, where the POV being pushed is held by most editors ab initio or by predilection. If Arbitrators don't understand this problem, then editors asserting what appears to be minority POV -- even if they are simply asserting what is in reliable sources, and seeking consensus -- can easily be seen as disruptive. Thus insisting on full dispute resolution process before coming to that conclusion about an editor would be important, the full process would document and reveal the problem.

Continuing to assert a position, seeking consensus through discussion, when faced with tag-team or even individual revert-warring, looks like tendentious editing to someone who does not take the time to understand the issues. If a minority editor follows WP:DR, it can be called "forum shopping." There was an active cold fusion mediation under way when I was banned from the page and talk, and that mediation was -- slowly -- making progress. It wasn't finished. ArbComm has essentially blown it out of the water, because, while there are other editors who understand some of the issues, I was the most broadly informed and the most able to collect the necessary arguments for neutral decisions to be made, and I'm now topic-banned for a year. It's difficult to see this as anything other than punitive, since I'd previously accepted an article page ban, was willing to accept reversion of even my Talk page material unless it was "seconded," in which case I'd still not participate in any edit warring over it, I was willing and even happy to accept a mentor who would have been able to advise me against being too wordy (which is the only issue of substance raised against my editing), but, underneath it all, in the proposed decisions in my case, the real issue can be seen: it was considered desirable to get me out of and away from WP dispute resolution process, where I'd been effective, with many examples, including your old RfC. It's hard to understand, apart from this, why some considered it desirable that I be banned from "intervening in any dispute" where I was not a "primary party." What behavior of mine would have been prevented by this?

I can only think of some examples where I'd successfully raised issues of administrative error or abuse. I pointed out that an administrator had improperly blacklisted sites where he was in personal dispute with the site owners and had clear content involvement, and ArbComm accepted this position. I was improperly banned by an administrator from cold fusion, an administrator who had a long history of involved blocks. When it appeared that this ban was no longer enforceable by the admin, I announced my intention to ignore it, and when I edited the article a day later, I was blocked by the admin, during the case, where he and I were primary parties. It was blatantly inappropriate, and he almost lost his bit immediately. But he didn't. Nevertheless, when he showed no understanding at all of the problem, he did lose his bit as part of that decision. And that ban was the basis for my filing the case in the first case (and my case became complicated only because of a piling in of editors who were, as I showed, highly involved mutually). In other words, I was confirmed. So ... what exactly justified the restrictions?

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must assume that it was successfully arguing against a substantial group of editors, perhaps two dozen, including a few administrators (at the time, at least two are no longer administrators), who really didn't like that. Add to that, then and now, showing that arbitrators had accepted and presented preposterous evidence, evidence that contradicted their own prior decisions, literally. Some people really don't like it when their ignorance and errors are exposed, and if they have power, they tend to use it to discourage such. I am not the first person to notice all this.

Some Arbitrators are not restrained, and the others are obviously unwilling to confront this, perhaps in the name of "unity." But this is a false unity. A real unity would be based on real consensus, not suppression of differences in the name of not making waves. There *must* be process for raising and resolving issues, and it needs to be much simpler and more accessible than what is in place, which is largely unmanageable even by very experienced editors. And this is just one of many problems that flow out of the lack of structure for resolving disputes. The DR guidelines are pretty good, but without structure and respect for the process -- which can be tedious -- it's useless.

ArbComm insists upon others following dispute resolution process, but ArbComm itself doesn't know how to resolve disputes. Rather, it makes majority-rule decisions, often without a clear basis, hence those impacted by the decisions frequently don't respect them. And the general assumption seems to be that those negatively impacted by a decision would, of course, not respect it. That is a sign that knowledge of and reliance upon consensus process is missing. It is not inevitable that people adversely affected, in some way, by a decision, will not respect it. People who have worked with parliamentary procedure, standard deliberative decision-making process, have learned that you win votes and lose votes, and that taking it personally is silly, and that the right of the majority to make decisions is worthy of respect. However, standard process provides that it takes a supermajority to close debate, to determine that continued discussion toward the end of finding solutions that enjoy broader support than a mere majority -- which are essential for decisions to be broadly respected, if there is serious conflict involved -- and ArbComm has not adopted standard process, which has stood the test of centuries. It is running a far more ad hoc and ochlocratic process without the protections that make majority rule tolerable.

(As one considered expert on voting systems and election science, I often have a dispute with people who dislike majority rule, who favor, on one side, consensus decision-making, and, on the other, social utility maximization using aggregational methods like Range voting. My conclusion from long experience with both majority rule (standard deliberative process, i.e., Robert's Rules of Order or the like) and consensus process is that:

1. A consensus requirement favors the status quo, which then gives oligarchies that naturally form too much power. "Consensus" then becomes, when the status quo favors a minority, and in effect, minority rule, which is clearly undesirable.
2. The majority has the right of decision (assuming they are peers.)
3. It wisely exercises that right with caution and respect for the rights of minorities on any issue.
4. If one is involved in a society where the majority isn't wise and is willing to suppress minority views and disallow minorities the opportunity to fully present their case (which is required under standard deliberative process, through many traditional mechanisms), leave if you can, for the situation is hopeless unless outside intervention comes. Even if you are in the majority now, your turn will come.
5. If the majority is wise but asleep, be aware that waking up the majority can be very difficult, and some don't like to be awakened and will lash out at anyone who disturbs their comfortable nap. If you are making noise, you are the problem, for these. This is quite natural, and solutions involve setting up process for nondisruptive consideration of minority opinion, so that disputes can be resolved without a huge fuss, unless it comes to the point that a huge fuss is truly necessary. Usually it is not, if direct process is adequate. [[WP:DR] is designed to work, probably with this in mind. And it is widely ignored, and ArbComm frequently fails to notice this.

I wrote more, but it could be interpreted as violating my editing restrictions, something which didn't occur to me until I was ready to save it. I will clarify this before proceeding. If I'm going to violate editing restrictions, I don't want it to be over something as stupid as not understanding them.... Thanks for your interest, GoRight. I do appreciate all you did, trying to stave off the tide of insanity, I will not forget it.

Does ArbComm imagine that its non-evidenced decisions will be convincing? It seems to have some tendency to punish those who are not contrite; for someone to be contrite they must understand that they did something wrong. Thus it's important to at least attempt to convince ostensible offenders with evidence, and in a sane system, your friends would help convince you. You are not going to be convinced by an arbitrator presenting, without explanation, undigested and highly biased or even false or misleading evidence presented by someone, a party to the case, who had been attempting to get you banned for months, and who was himself violating policies and guidelines and disregarding Arbitration Committee rulings on the relevant topic, and who edit warred during the case over Talk page content. What would we call someone who imagined that this would work?

Except, of course, they don't care if they don't establish the basis for a ruling, it is of no substantial consequence. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Contravention of editing restrictions

If you do not wish to be blocked, you should probably remove your contribution to the present RfAr which is in direct contravention of your editing restrictions here. Here is a reminder of what they say in case you have forgotten:

Abd is prohibited from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s). This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution. He would be allowed to vote or comment at polls.

Mathsci (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll leave it to an arbitrator to make that call, or possibly a clerk. I was indeed aware of that restriction, but there are two problems with it. First, I don't have a mentor, formally, that remedy was written when a mentorship proposal was on the table. However, I do have informal mentors and I can and will ask. I don't expect that they will disapprove. But, second, I am already involved in the topic. Very involved, just not at the article itself, recently. I've been thinking of asking ArbComm to clarify the purpose of the remedy, so that it's easier to interpret. It wasn't based on any findings of fact, which makes interpretation difficult. I.e., had it been based on a finding of fact, there would be, then, some example of a violation to avoid repeating!

Thanks for the friendly warning. No, I didn't forget. My conclusion was that it didn't apply to this specific case, before ArbComm. While the remedy is explicitly general, had ArbComm intended to prevent me from commenting when I was already involved, as I am, it could have been more specific, and perhaps, if someone files an AE case, it will be. I have no intention of defying ArbComm. And, ultimately, I don't think that my comment there was disruptive in any way. Do you think that it was? I'm very much not calling for anyone to be sanctioned, I would merely want, as do others, ArbComm to clarify the situation, sanctions would be down the road and only if editors or administrators persist in improper behavior. --Abd (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It might be an idea to clarify this with the arbitrators by email. A reasonable interpretation of "formal and informal dispute resolution" would probably include ArbCom cases concerning areas in which you have not previously been involved, like climate change. Mathsci (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea, and it might be a bad one. Asking useless questions is disruptive, at least mildly so. I'm not going to bother an arbitrator with this, their time is precious. However, it appears you didn't read my response. I'm involved in the dispute, across the family of climate change articles, it began with my assistance in certifying Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight and the research I did for that RfC, which shocked me. And I reported it. --Abd (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this reply. Any further statements by you should now be made at WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If I recall there was discussion at the time of my possibly being your mentor, Abd. Until you have a more formal arrangement in place, should you even require one, I hereby agree to fill that role and approve your participation in this important case. --GoRight (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec with below):Well, I was actually going to your Talk page to request this, when I got the messages notice, so, thanks. I will accept and respect your mentorship, pending a more formal appointment of mentor. If ArbComm wants to specify "mentor" more specifically, it is welcome to do so. Heh! Perhaps you recall who else openly offered to be my mentor. I don't intend to make trouble for you, beyond an occasional tome dropped in your email inbox, it shouldn't take you more than a day or two to read. Okay?

Seriously, I'm not planning on being particularly active, many of my interests having been banned by ArbComm, and being insanely busy off-wiki But here, with that interesting filing, I have special experience to report, and so I did. --Abd (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's highly dubious with your very weak editing record that ArbCom would you approve as a mentor. What you have written appears to be trolling. Mathsci (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dubious or not, what does Arbcom approval have to do with anything? That provision was never passed. Why would you consider a conversation between myself and my mentee to be trolling? You do know what that word means, write? (You can reply on my talk page if you like since you seem to be no longer welcome here.) --GoRight (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, this is my Talk page, you have insulted my guest. Go away, you are not welcome here now, further posts here will be considered disruptive and reported as such. It didn't even occur to me to ban you like this until you made that gratuitous comment. However, if you wish to respond to this, you may do so on your own Talk page, dropping a link here with no disruptive comment, and I'll read it. --Abd (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Long, painful experience teaches that this needs to be nipped in the bud. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Abd. You may remove this notification if you like. MastCell ^Talk 00:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, let it stand in all its dubious glory. MastCell, this was over, I believe. But suit yourself, I believe I'm done here. As I wrote at the AE page, no disruption was intended, and any editor who considers my original comment in the RfAr to be disruptive may remove it, on the theory that it would be the post of a banned editor. And then another editor, not banned, may reinstate it if desired, on personal responsibility of relevance, and perhaps a clerk or arbitrator might choose to take an interest. I'm taking the minimally disruptive course consistent with my obligation to testify in a case where I am, in fact, involved. Very involved.

If I am blocked over that statement before ArbComm, which would seem to me silly, I will not request unblock unless so advised by my mentor. I'll let the community decide what to do without my advice. Which may be absolutely nothing, often that's what the community does. This tempest in a teapot reminds me of why I'm generally avoiding editing Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Abd, I suggest you avoid the arbcom pages, because it's bound to cause more drama. But if you like, feel free to keep evidence in your user directory, and if I see something that I believe can be used as evidence, I will incorporate it into my evidence. ATren (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, ATren. Your intentions are appreciated. However, the remedy in question prohibits me from intervening in any way, which is part of what is so problematic about it. I can, of course, email wikitext to be placed by someone else on a user page at their personal discretion. It appears that the only intervention prohibited is on-wiki. But the meaning and interpretation of that ban is quite unclear to me. I can see, among the comments of various editors, quite contradictory interpretations (all leading to 'Abd, don't participate,' but on quite different theories. "Named party," for example, cited by some, isn't a part of the restriction, and given that the restriction is general, the reference to "originating parties" must refer to a party involved in a dispute, since many DR processes don't have literal named parties.

Suppose I'm editing an article, perhaps I take a break for a while. I come back, and find that an RfAr has been filed over this article, over issues with which I'm intimately familiar. Is commenting in such a case prohibited by the remedy?

Maybe. But that's why there is the mentor exception. If my mentor permits it. Now, may I correctly anticipate the response of a mentor, i.e., if I make a non-disruptive edit, someone complains -- not about the edit itself, but that I was the one to make it -- and the mentor then comments that it's permitted. The substance here is compliance.

Am I required to get ArbComm approval for my mentor? That was proposed and rejected! I'll let the cat out of the bag, though it was already out for anyone who has paid attention to my case. Fritzpoll offered to mentor me. I'm not about secrecy and concealment, though I will exercise discretion. My guess is that Fritzpoll would recuse in any case involving me centrally. So I suppose I might as well ask him and we can confirm it. I'm tired of all the wikilawyering, though. The debate over my statement was almost all about the technicality, not the substance of it. And then I'm accused of wikilawyering! The objection to the statement was pure wikilawyering, and argument for technical non-compliance, based on unclear "legality," and not at all on the actual edit. There is long tradition for lack of response to technical ban violations that aren't substantial.

The point of bans is to simplify and avoid disruption. In this case, a narrow interpretation of the ban caused way, way more disruption than the supposed violation itself could possibly have caused. The initial intervention, the complaint, was by an editor who clearly has an agenda with respect to me, already admonished for incivility, but who is not, himself, involved in the subject case.

Atren, you are correct. My comments will be disruptive, no matter how clear, civil, to-the-point, and relevant they are. But the disruption is coming from a set of highly disruptive editors, disruptive long-term, causing massive and ongoing disruption. And you know it, and it appears from the comments in the RfAr, the community is finally crystallizing its knowledge of this and coming out of the closet with it. The "clique" -- these are the same set of editors I called a "cabal" in my case, making no charge at all of secret collaboration, because the collaboration was quite open, not hidden -- has long wikilawyered and disrupted and obfuscated the situation, and I began to expose that with my evidence in RfC/GoRight. Truth will out. But it comes out faster if those with knowledge are at least allowed to comment! And those who are dependent upon the collective inattention of the community will do everything they can to prevent this, when they can find an excuse.

The irony here is that WMC is probably one of the more reasonable of these editors, he actually did, when I worked on Global warming, support reasonable compromises. That was then, I'm not sure about now. But he clearly supported the ownership of the article by his faction, and he was explicit about this on his Talk page, I presented that evidence in my case. Unfortunately, it was, like much, ignored, in favor of a simplistic interpretation: if many editors are upset with Abd, it must be true that Abd is disruptive. If we ban Abd, maybe the problem will go away. Well, four months later, the problem hasn't gone away, and it is now a public scandal once again. It's about time that Wikipedia discriminate between useless and obfuscatory disruption, pure time-wasting, and necessary disruption caused by confronting problems.

I'm not trying to get anyone banned or desysopped, I simply want ArbComm to make a clear stand for neutrality policy and the processes that are necessary to support it.

Thanks for commenting. --Abd (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ban violations continue

I cut this from ANI:

::(ec with below) Speak of the devil. I'm guessing if I'm going to be accused of wikilawyering, I get to respond. Was this wikilawyering? Or was it an attempt to testify before the Committee on a matter where I'd been involved? I do plan to ask the Committee to clear up the confusion, mine or others or both. --Abd (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Your terms above are clear - you're not allowed to participate unless you're an originating party. Merely being mentionned doesn't permit you to comment. Repeated violation of this will get you blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The facts of this matter, as to the precise interpretation of my ban, will be determined, quite likely, by ArbComm, either on-wiki, or, better, by email, so that disruption to the community is minimized.

The mention of me on AN was disruptive and unnecessary. But if you are going to accuse me of an offense, I have the right to respond, for this would establish a dispute in which I'm involved. The interpretation that I'm prohibited when brought into a case by a party is pure wikilawyering, practically by definition.

Go away, WMC, do not post to my Talk page unless it is a sincere attempt to resolve a dispute instead of to inflame one. Your comment here is disruptive and provocative, and you should know that. Stop it, or you will be blocked. Be aware of something: if I'm blocked, that can create a dispute where I'm a clear party, it would provide me with the right to take the matter to ArbComm, without any doubt, so, my advice to any admin considering blocking me over technical details: make sure you are neutral, and that you are protecting the wiki. If you are careful about this, you will be safe, even if you should err.

Note that I would not raise an on-wiki protest over a short block, because this would do little damage to the project. But others might.

The flap over the RfAr statement is probably passing. That flap itself was a police riot, creating far more disruption than simply leaving the comment, or, alternatively, removing it on an interpretation that it was a ban violation. If permitted by ArbComm or an approved mentor, I will probably submit evidence in the case. This was a tempest in a teapot, over a purely technical detail of ban interpretation, in my opinion, not over actual disruption through the statement edit itself. If it had been left alone, what damage would have been done? Surely if my intention is to push the edge, there will be more incidents and a clearer approach to the edge, without provocation like yours. But responding to a scurrilous allegation isn't pushing an edge; my involvement at AN was created by that comment of yours. If you disagree, try to find a neutral editor to approach me. I'll respond. Or take it to AE, if you think the comment was also a violation. It really doesn't matter to me, except that unnecessary AE reports waste a lot of community time. Think about the project, WMC, and act accordingly, wise up. We might even end up working together. --Abd (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate change arbitration statement removed

Hello Abd. I've removed your arbitration statement about climate change because you're under a restriction which stops you commenting on disputes you're not involved in and you're clearly not involved in this one as far as arbitration is concerned. I'm not going to issue a block, but please refrain from doing so in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's your privilege, Ryan. Thanks. I disagree. I'm very involved, with the specific dispute, just not as a named party. I assume that some arbitrators will see the statement if they want to, others won't care, and, in fact, neither do I, I've done my duty by testifying, I have no investment in any outcome, I believe that I discharged my responsibility by posting the comment. If arbitrators want to consider it, they may, and if they don't, they won't.

It's odd that Rlevse thought the claim of involvement was post hoc, when, in fact, this is quite what the statement itself was saying. Just goes to show. --Abd (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentor

Happy new year, and welcome back. Do you think you could persuade Durova to be your mentor? She seems to be good at that stuff. Best of luck putting the past behind you. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. But did you read her comment? She's right. ArbComm is making mentorship impossible, or, more accurately, mentorship that will work. Thanks, Guy, but ... I like my past, I keep it in front of me. Good luck yourself, don't take any wooden nickels, and you might consider avoiding expressing strong opinions on topics where backsides and holes in the ground are difficult to distinguish, such as emerging sciences that require noticing a thousand peer-reviewed journal articles, recognition in a mainstream scientific encyclopedia, increasing governmental support, and the total disappearance of serious published expert criticism, to Get a Clue. --Abd (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision of your editing restrictions

As you may know, they have been revised and 3.2 now reads "Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls." Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked for quite a bit more clarification than that. Oh, well. I'll have to ask again by email. For the future, pending, should I find that IAR requires me to comment somewhere, perhaps I'll file an ArbComm case as an originating party, instead of messing around with minor comments as an unwanted "meddler." Or, alternatively, simply start editing in the problem area, no "disputes" for me, no sirree.... Why discuss disputes anyway? Why not just investigate and support what needs support on articles themselves? Can't lick 'em, join 'em!

I thank ArbComm for improving my efficiency, so that I'm now wasting far less time. It's been quite useful. Truly. I'm also grateful to the Community for going ahead and fixing stuff I'd noticed and commented on without my participation, examples are legion. At least it's been without my on-wiki participation. I may be behind, directly or through various forms of meat puppetry, many improvements to wiki process for the last few months. Some of my meat puppets are totally unaware of it, others may know. Happy New Year, and thanks for the notice. And thanks to the many editors who have made themselves useful to the project.

Wikipedia Rule Number One: If a rule prevents you from improving the project, ignore it.

Abd's Corollary to Rule Number One: If you haven't been blocked yet, you aren't trying hard enough to improve the project.

(The Corollary was written before I was ever seriously blocked, and is why I wrote to Iridescent, when I was actually indeffed, "You don't know how happy you have made me." One might notice the outcome of all this: the warning administrator in that situation was Jehochman, who became a close wiki-friend. I cited Iridescent many times as an example of good administrator behavior. I was blocked for supposedly attacking Fritzpoll, who also became a good wikifriend, granted me Rollback, and who has apparently been prevented by ArbComm from becoming my formal mentor; it appears that ArbComm now is attempting to control and coerce its own members, not just the great unwashed. Sometimes it has to get worse before it can get better.) --Abd (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Tylman AfD

Hi Abd, I noticed that your comment here. Previously you have said said that you have joined the WP:EEML, and another member has confirmed this. Was this AfD brought up on the mailing list, and if so, what was said about it? Offliner (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Offliner, it is my policy not to reveal private email content without the permission of the author, and it would have been better if Wikipedia and ArbComm had followed this policy strictly with respect to the EEML, using illicit evidence only as a clue privately followed to discover actual on-wiki abuse, but never to establish or prove such abuse. Mailing list mail is not fully private, but does carry with it an expectation of privacy which should be respected, unless a list has been announced as open.

I will acknowledge being a member of the EEML list, but I cannot respond to your question otherwise. I will state, however, that the opinion I gave in my AfD comment was my own opinion, based on review of the evidence and principles involved, and the comments in the 2nd AfD, which I did follow though I was blocked at the time, and it's up to the closer to determine the outcome, based, not on the numbers of votes, but on the cogency of arguments, and closes that are based on numbers of votes are defective, in my opinion. Canvassing should actually be irrelevant unless it creates so many !votes that it becomes impossible to read the damn thing.

Now, my questions for you. Are you planning to harass anyone who interferes with your agenda, or is this just a coincidence? If you want to know what goes on with the list, why don't you ask to join? At the very least, it might cause some smiles, but, at best, it might do much more good than that. If you don't know how to ask, ask me for assistance and I'll make the suggestion for you. I do not know what the response will be. --Abd (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my post sounded offensive, as this was not my intention. I was simply being curious, but probably should have worded my post in another way. It is not my intention to harass anyone. I understand that you cannot answer my question for privacy reasons, and I also understand that simply discussing the AfD on the list may not be inapproriate and may not be canvassing. As for the article itself, I don't feel too strongly about it and I have nothing against keeping it if this is indeed the consensus. But, you've got to admit, that an article about Poeticbent, written by Poeticbent and defended by several editos with whom Poeticbent is having discussions with on the mailing list, is curious and interesting, even though there is no evidence that foul play is involved. I can honestly imagine that the discussion about the article on the mailing list is being innocent and maybe has a casual or humorous tone. Anyway, let's not start thinking of each other as "opponents", as I don't have anything against you personally. I wish you luck in whatever you are doing and I apologize for my post and I will try to avoid offensive tone in the future. Offliner (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Offliner, no harm done. I'll strike out the comment in the AfD about this. Good luck. Uh, what about the suggestion that you ask to join the EEML? Are you declining my offer to assist with that? No harm in being explicit, is there? --Abd (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I might be interested in joining (out of curiousity) if you can first assure me that there is nothing suspicious going on on the list, as I'd never want to be affiliated with a similar group like the old EEML was. In other words, the first post I see should *not* be good old Poeticbent asking other members to rescue his article ;) Anyway, I suppose the new EEML is quite quiet now as many members have indicated that they have left. Offliner (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The list is a collection of editors of varying conditions. People are open about their positions, I think I can say that. I haven't seen anything "suspicious," as such. To my recollection, the editor you mention isn't a participant on the list and longer. But what if he did rejoin and asked for that? How would this in any way harm you? Do you imagine that you would be somehow poisoned by the information? You know, because this comment appeared here, it's likely that Mathsci went to that AfD and voted Delete. If not, it would be quite a coincidence in a series of such. There are a number of hostile editors who watch my Talk pages and show up to present something in opposition. And it's all silly. WP:CANVASS is, as it has been interpreted, one of the stupidest guidelines. We should encourage informed comment, and, supposedly we don't vote, eh? So why would anyone imagine that canvassing does harm other than by, in the extreme, creating a pile of votes that supposedly don't count. Ah, but votes do count to some closing admins, who don't do their own investigation. And that is the problem. Same problem as with arbitrators who don't investigate for themselves, but act like "judges" in the American system who depend on combatants to organize the arguments and information for them, and then they decide which gladiator they like the most. It's a breakdown of what made WP process work, independent judgment. If it were operating, if, indeed, we didn't vote, canvassing would be irrelevant or at most irritating and stupid. At best, however, it would consist of inviting people with knowledge of a subject to comment on it. Is there something wrong with that? In any case, Offliner, I offered to assist you with a request to join the EEML. I have reasons to think they might accept and reasons to think they might not. I'll say this much: most of them are reasonable people, and thoughtful. Some aren't. Human beings, they are. Your call. --Abd (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Abd. I think you are right about WP:CANVASS. Yes, we should encourage the informed comment and do not punish people for doing this, no matter how they inform each other. That's why the sanctions were wrong. As about private mailing lists, one should be always ready that all his presumably private comments will be publicly posted by hostile members of the same list or by someone else who intercepts emails. Are you ready? I am not and therefore will never be involved in such lists. Indeed, this list made more harm than good, and this is just a matter of fact. Rephrasing one philosopher, if the list did not exist, it had to be invented. Indeed, one user at ruwiki created a similar list only to report himself all other unsuspecting members to ruwiki administration. Biophys (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In a sense, that's really cool! In another, it's a horrific abuse of trust. When ArbComm was handed the archive of the EEML, it should have done nothing but note it, until someone filed a case alleging misbehavior, and the behavior alleged should have been based solely on on-wiki evidence, and off-wiki evidence should not have been allowed at all, not to mention evidence the disclosure of which was probably illegal. If there is on-wiki disruption, it's all clear and easily documented, and if it can't be, there was no disruption, even if the editors promised each other on blood oaths, privately, when they were drunk, to absolutely destroy the place.

So on ru.wiki, the revelation of some possible involvement could cause an admin to look more closely at the actual on-wiki situation. Flapping our lips outside should be completely irrelevant. But ArbComm, way too often, has taken a different position, in fact, and has sanctioned an editor, as an example, for writing an opinion piece in an outside publication about how great Wikipedia was, how the editor had been effective in moving an article toward neutrality and compliance with its RS guidelines. Aha! WP:BATTLE violation by an WP:SPA! Topic ban! Even though the editor had not violated behavioral guidelines in any way as seriously as was routine for the other side of the dispute (and which behavior, of course, continued). It was his alleged thinking that was considered reprehensible. And, of course, his POV, and, sure enough, the decision was used by admins to sanction or attempt to sanction other editors, based purely on their POV. That's the mess we have, and this isn't uncommon at all, it is practically routine, which is why my editing has slowed to a serious crawl. --Abd (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above being modified by Biophys) I've always been quite open as to what I'm about. Not always here on WP itself, because of rules and conditions, but on Wikipedia Review, lately, or in private mail. Yes, we should consider that whatever we say can become publicly known, within limits. However, private mailing lists are, in my view, part of the solution to the WP governance problem, because they can allow people to internally negotiate a factional consensus without flak. The WP oligarchy doesn't want to allow factional consensus to develop, but, of course, it does anyway, with or without explicit process. So by prohibiting factional consensus process, it prohibits factions from acting coherently and on an even playing field. Such structures as the EEML scare the hell out of those who are trying to stop the tide by finding and sticking their fingers in the holes that keep popping through. But, in fact, intelligent factions will restrain their own members. Instead of banning EEML members by placing the most negative possible ABF construction on what they were doing, ArbComm should have recognized that these editors were working for what they saw as WP policy -- and, generally, from what I've seen, they were correct. But the very fact that they cooperated was seen as conspiratorial and harmful. Think about it: cooperation is harmful. Eh? By focusing on "secret conspiracy" instead of on-wiki behavior, actual effect on the project, ArbComm has attempted to enforce and continue a highly defective understanding of how Wikipedia works and could work. And, at the same time, it ignores blatant harmful cooperation, simply because there is no evidence of "improper collaboration." If a mob beats me up, does it matter if they agreed beforehand to do so, or just spontaneously cooperated because they were watching the same spot, the spot I happened to stumble across. The articles that they own.

Factional consensus then allows representatives of factions to negotiate and find deep consensus that will stick without anything other than natural enforcement, and such hard-won consensus -- it's work! -- will be defended by the participants, who will deal with their own offenders, which will be much more effective than enforcement by either involved administrators -- subtle involvement arises rather easily, all you have to do is be an admin and dislike a user or POV, and act accordingly -- or uninvolved but clueless administrators, which is almost as bad. Thanks, Biophys, sorry about the sanctions, but, hey, I know what it's like to be doing your darndest to help a project, seeking neutrality and consensus, and it spits you out because the powerful are too lazy or too overworked to actually understand what's going on.

And, by the way, an alternate interpretation is that ArbComm does understand, but doesn't know how to explain that understanding, or doesn't care enough to do so. People are free, editors are free, and have no intrinsic moral obligation to follow ArbComm decisions, and if ArbComm doesn't respect that, it will continually be perplexed as editors become disruptive when sanctioned with sanctions that were not negotiated with them, that were merely imposed. Nobody likes to be bullied, and some fight back. I'm a parent, seven kids, five of which are grown, and I have five grandchildren. ArbComm is like a very dysfunctional parent who imagines that the kids will simply do what they say. (Too often, it's minus the caring part, a dysfunctional parent will still care about the kids). The approach that the ArbComm majority has long been taking is known to fail, it doesn't create order and discipline, it creates rebellion and chaos. More and more, ArbComm is becoming explicitly punitive.

ArbComm should be both the last opportunity for dispute resolution and a decider of specifics as to behavior. But it should always work on dispute resolution first, which doesn't mean deciding outcomes, it means encouraging -- or even demanding -- that the parties come to agreement, in a supervised and mandatory process (mandatory in the sense that absent cooperation, an editor may remain under injunction to prevent disruption), with preliminary injunctions issued as needed, it will see what it needs to see, should it then need to make specific decisions or impose sanctions. What I see instead, again and again, is ArbComm simply imposing its opinion, often formed without independent investigation and careful deliberation, effectively becoming a party to the dispute by agreeing with one side, and when it does this, it frequently ignores outrageous misbehavior, taking place in the ArbComm process itself, highly visible, and then it sanctions the side it dislikes, for the most part, which implies blaming a party for misbehavior of another party. ("If we get rid of party A, party B who has been made very angry by A, will settle down and return to normal usefulness for the project." Naive. You do not know who is causing disruption unless you seriously attempt to resolve the dispute through consensus process. Appearances can be deceiving.) --Abd (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

← I can't say I'm especially familiar with the WP:EEML case, but... my understanding is that the editors in question engaged in behaviors that were directly disruptive, including coordinating to circumvent 3RR and targeting specific opponents for vexatious litigation and baiting. Those behaviors were cited by ArbCom, who had reviewed the emails. They're poor form in and of themselves, but when off-wiki coordination of such behavior is apparent, then it seems reasonable to treat it as an aggravating factor. The problem wasn't that they cooperated per se, but that they cooperated to undermine other editors and the site's behavioral standards.

As an experiment in critical thought, suppose it became clear that a group of editors was coordinating off-wiki to combat what they saw as excessively promotional "fringe" content on Wikipedia (cold fusion, global-warming skepticism, etc). Let's say they're working from their understanding of Wikipedia policy - after all, it brings this site into disrepute and undermines its goal of becoming a serious, respectable reference work when it extends excessive credulity to minoritarian or tiny-fringe viewpoints. And let's say these editors operated by coordinating around 3RR and by targeting "problem" editors for baiting and vexatious litigation.

Would you dismiss such coordination as merely a way to "internally negotiate a factional consensus without flak"? Would you defend their actions as "part of the solution to the WP governance problem"? Would you refrain from "placing the most negative possible ABF construction on what they were doing"? MastCell ^Talk 18:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "understanding" isn't accurate, MastCell. I did not review all the evidence in the case, only the early evidence presented by an arbitrator, and it was inadequate to establish on-wiki disruption. It was even cherry-picked, i.e., a comment from Piotrus was quoted that looked bad, but then what was further down in the same email completely contradicted the impression that the cherry-picked quote presented. The problem you cite, MastCell, confuses the development of a group consensus -- which generally wasn't complete with EEML, there are and were various POVs represented on the list, and quite varying degrees of possible disruptiveness -- with reprehensible attempt to inflict that consensus on the wiki without negotiation with the broader community. Generally, it's impossible to tell if there is off-wiki coordination, and there certainly is, often involving editors of high reputation. Enforcement of policy has unfortunately been based on such a thing as the equivalent of someone concealing a tape recorder in a bar visited by two editors, and then revealing the conversation they have as proof of "coordination," when they may have only been blowing off steam or fantasizing or blustering. Allowing this evidence, then, rewards snooping and hacking and the "team" with the greatest skill in this regard. I don't know about this specific case, but in some cases, governmental-level assistance may be available to a faction, consider that, please.

I saw Piotrus, in the case, accused of improper use of tools for an action which was relatively harmless (temporary semiprotection to deal with obvious tag-team editing from IP and SPAs), and which was confirmed by practically immediate full protection by a completely uninvolved admin. The problem? He learned about the situation on the mailing list, he took a look at it, and took a moderate action. Should he have refrained? Yes, and I think he acknowledged that. But, MastCell, I see worse, much worse, all the time. Basically, as an admin, he jaywalked, it was a technical violation and not a violation in substance. And violations in substance are happening all the time, often in full view of ArbComm, if it paid attention to what happens in its own process.

Further, you are seriously incorrect to confuse my elucidation of principles with the specific case. I'm not allowed to intervene in the EEML situation, per se, except to vote in polls, unless somehow I become an "originating party," and I'm not planning on testing the limits of that freedom. On the substance of what you wrote, again, I saw, recently, the wiki come into serious disrepute through the actions of a faction of editors who routinely cooperate. Do they have off-wiki means of communicating? Individually, I'm sure, and I've seen evidence of emails, but a list? No evidence. But, MastCell, list cooperation when there are a few responsible editors involved -- and Piotrus was responsible, he believed in wikipedia process and was published, under peer-review I believe, as a sociologist, with a naive view of how well the process worked -- is less dangerous than individual collaboration, the latter can be just as damaging, as can cooperation simply through shared POV and watchlist targets.

Hey, MastCell, do we have a dispute here? --Abd (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re to MastCell: Four editors in the list were seriously sanctioned exclusively for canvassing - according to the Fofs. They where not guilty of anything else. As about the group of editors you imagined, this is known as editorial board. But they do not need to use baiting and litigation. Biophys (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, I'd have investigated the evidence mentioned and come up with a report, which I would drop in the appropriate place. Because I did this with as much neutrality as I could muster, and with thoroughness, it was often effective at helping the community come up with better results. But I was blocked during the EEML case, for the most part, and now, because of the MYOB sanction, I cannot intervene except under certain narrow circumstances. Perhaps I'll do it anyway and put it up on Wikipedia Review, or perhaps not. It's really a pain in the ass to do that work, and it isn't wanted, quite apparently, for reasons I must guess, because they haven't been made explicit. But if someone else wants to do it, I'd assist, that's a lot easier. Off-wiki, please, until it's done and some editor here, not under and ban, takes responsibility for reviewing it and providing it. --Abd (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Abd, I did not know about your unusual editing restriction. You must be a really strong polemist. Please do not comment anywhere on the EEML case. This is last thing you and others need.Biophys (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind advice, Biophys. I'm not gratuitously commenting, but only either doing what my restrictions allow or responding to others who involve me in disputes in some way. That is likewise allowed, it appears. Actually, I'm lousy at polemic, polemic generally needs to be concise to be effective. I comment, that's all, or present evidence, and I was indeed quite effective at it, within certain limits. Not all editors like this kind of deeper reflection and report. Some do.

Don't worry about me, I'm not attached to anything other than honesty, and it's up to Wikipedia if it wants my participation. What happened today was simply that I commented in an AfD, not on the EEML case, and then all these people piled in to bring up EEML or related issues.... it was just a damn AfD! -- and the few editors making a fuss definitely have axes to grind and have wanted to see me blocked for a long time, and unless ArbComm does something about it, they will continue to waste everyone's time with disruptive process, claiming that I'm the one being disruptive. It will all come out in the wash.

See, Biophys, I've lived my life -- all of it since I reached adulthood 45 years ago -- knowing that everything I do comes out in the end. There is a record of all this, and I trust in that and the ultimate judgment, much more than the transient croaking of frogs or the bleating of sheep who haven't got a clue but sure know who the bad guys are.... (Unfortunately, they get it wrong and miss the wolves hiding among them.) Meanwhile, we have an Arbitration Committee that can make definitive rulings, and I'm following whatever is reasonably clear from the Committee, and asking for clarification for what is not. My action yesterday was, to me, clearly permitted; if I'm wrong, a neutral admin will warn me, I assume, or block me, and the Committee will clarify what is needed, or my mentor will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs)

To answer your earlier bolded question, no, I don't think we have a dispute. We're on your talk page, where as far as I know you can talk about anything you like. I was simply probing you about some of the implications of something you'd said, mostly because I was curious about your thought process. About the AfD, I didn't see a problem with you commenting there. MastCell ^Talk 00:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, MastCell. Glad you don't think we have a dispute! Yeah, I've come to expect seriously contentious examination of my every move, but this AfD thing really surprised me. One point: you wrote, at AE:

I don't think the intent of the restriction was to bar Abd from participating in AfDs across the board; it was focused on abuse of dispute resolution, and AfD isn't part of dispute resolution.

Now, this is my problem with this, and it could possibly lead to further problems in the future. The restriction was termed an MYOB restriction, however, there was no example presented as evidence, anywhere that I saw, of "abuse of dispute resolution." JzG has recently asserted dead-horse-beating, but, in fact, the situations where I was earlier accused of that (by him and others) are ones where ArbComm or the community ultimately came, in general, to the position I was asserting; JzG was admonished for abuse of tools, and it was blatant, and likewise WMC was desysopped for doing stuff, in front of ArbComm, like he'd done before, he'd done it so many times and had been supported by his faction so many times that apparently he thought he was bulletproof. I blame the faction more than him, by the way, they led him down the rosy path.

There was a cold fusion mediation in process, and it was coming up with decisions that were either what I'd advocated, or which were fully compatible with what I'd advocated. It was interrupted by the RfAr and my subsequent site ban, and the one who asked for it wasn't really interested in mediation, it was a political move, but it was proving useful anyway without him. (I only mention the CF mediation as an example of DR process, not as an attempt to raise any cold fusion issues, where I'm clearly topic banned.)

Abuse of DR process? I went to great lengths to minimize disruption, eventually, having learned from prior experience. When the motion was made to topic ban me at AN or AN/I, I forget which, I initially responded but then realized that contesting it would cause a huge fuss with no resolution, so I accepted the ban and didn't challenge it. (The single self-reverted edit to Cold fusion during the ban was just what I fully expected would be accepted by the community and even by WMC, since he had argued that blocking someone for a harmless edit was "stupid" even though the person was banned. "Self-reverted" went further to guarantee harmlessness, allowing anyone to check out the edit quickly if they wanted to, or to ignore it if they wanted to. But when I was blocked for 24 hours by WMC, I didn't even put up an unblock template, to avoid disruption. I only took the matter to ArbComm when the community ban expired and WMC still insisted that he, personally, was the sole arbiter of my editing future, and I went to ArbComm directly because it was obvious that lower process would simply produce more heat than light.

So, what abuse? There was no clear finding of fact on this. And all I can do is imagine that the real reason isn't being stated. Which, then, means what? If my intent is compliance, as it is, and not wikilawyering, should I imagine the real reason and then self-censor my own behavior to avoid violating an unstated purpose? It looks to me, though, like part of the unstated purpose is to set up conditions to make me go away completely.... Is it?

One more comment: "pin drop" at AfD if we ban everyone who makes a contentious comment. Yeah, that made me laugh. True, too true. But you are also right about AfD and DR. AfD is not dispute resolution process, though it is a place where many disputes arise. I just made my damn comment and would have left it at that if others had left it at that. As it is, contention didn't escalate and pretty rapidly quieted down. I struck the AfD comment about harassment because Offliner apologized, you can see the discussion above in this section. --Abd (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Related question

Does anybody know what "originating party" actually means? Is Abd barred from initiating his own line of WP:DR on matters such as this? If other editors wished to seek out Abd's assistance in these types of matters and they ask him to initiate such WP:DR is that a violation? --GoRight (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did ask for clarification on this, but ArbComm was too busy yanking the mentor possibility while, behind the scenes, I suspect, an arbitrator was offering and attempting to become my mentor. It's pretty bad when ArbComm can't trust even one of its own members to mentor! But it's obvious that some are afraid I'd be given permission! And that I'd be effective.

Here is how I interpret it at this point: if there is a dispute between other editors that appears, at an article or with some other process where I'm not already -- and apparently, currently -- involved, I'm not to insert myself or comment, nor in ensuing process unless I'm named as a party. On-wiki. They obviously can't prevent me from commenting off-wiki, as long as I don't harass anyone. I don't think that the sanction was actually thought through, though, it was unsupported by FoF, so the intention is a tad obscure and might vary from arbitrator to arbitrator. It's still unclear, as to what ArbComm stated, if my comment in the Climate Change RfAr was a violation, but I'm tentatively assuming that it was, even though it wasn't intended to be.

I'd prefer, if ArbComm is going to decline to answer a request for clarification, as they did partially in the one I filed, if they explicitly state this. The RfAr/Clarification was closed without questions being answered, as if the removal of the mentorship clause was a full answer. But it wasn't. As I wrote, I'd have made the edit even if I had a mentor, because I was involved in the situation. You know that, for sure. But I wasn't an "originating party" for the RfAr, nor was I mentioned except later at AN by WMC, and while WMC tried to make hay from my response to him, it was pretty roundly ignored except by Mathsci.

To answer your specific question, my understanding is that if I have a dispute with another editor, my dispute, I can initiate process. (I can respond to someone making a statement about me, personally, except for pure neutral process.) Can I respond to an editor request for intervention? Good question. My sense is, no, not on-wiki, but that is problematic, for sure. However, I'd simply respond and advise the editor how to do it, off-wiki, and this kind of thing happens all the time, it happened when I was blocked and would continue if I was blocked again. ArbComm and the community have only very limited control over what I do, my compliance is voluntary. You know and I know what happens when an editor is pushed beyond the possibility of voluntary compliance.... An alternative is that I'd ask ArbComm for permission. They'd be better off, for efficiency, allowing a respected editor to be my mentor. Lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. --Abd (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, consider the following PURELY hypothetical scenario ...

1. You are off going about your business and you come across some heated discussion on some topic, and your interest is thereby piqued.
2. You go to the article on that topic, investigate the content there, and begin to participate by contributing to the content of that article.
3. Some editor there objects to your content changes.
4. You disagree and dispute that editor's position.
5. Are you now able to file your own line of WP:DR as an originating party?
6. If there was an existing WP:DR related to your content changes are you now able to join it rather than redundantly pursuing your own WP:DR?

Or how about this alternate purely hypothetical scenario ...

1. You decide in good faith to take everyone's advice to MYOB and begin contributing to mainspace more.
2. At some article you discover, much to your surprise and amazement, that some other editor disagrees with your content changes.
3. You disagree and dispute that editor's position.
4. As happenstance would have it, this particular content dispute had already been raised in the past.
5. Are you now able to file your own line of WP:DR as an originating party?

--GoRight (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, my interpretation as it stands. Yes to both examples. In other words, if disruption were my intention, I could easily get around the sanction. What is stopping me at this point is serious lack of interest in disruption and, indeed, in much of what I'd otherwise be doing with Wikipedia.

I commented in the Climate Change RfAr because I knew the situation well, you know that, and have waited a long time for ArbComm to start actually dealing with it.

I commented in the AfD because I'd seen the previous one while blocked, and was thus familiar with the issues. My comment was only mildly contentious, as AfDs go, I'm an inclusionist and made a general inclusionist argument, an important one, I thought, but also encouraged the closer to consider the issues and not the !votes. I have no idea what decision the closer will make and I don't care and I certainly wouldn't harass anyone over it, or haul an admin before DR process if I disagreed. If I voted in an AfD, and the admin made a clear error, in my opinion, I'd go to the admin's Talk page and request reconsideration, perhaps, and I'd certainly do that before going to DRV, DRV is often rudely abused, when a polite request to an admin can avoid it. But if the admin were rude, again, that would be the end of it, and I'd decide to go to DRV or not. I'd have the right, but I avoid more contentious process than I engage in. Much more. Is a marginal article, as that one is, worth the effort? Probably not!

Look at what it took to get me to initiate process with WMC, beyond talking with him and responding to process initiated by others! I even tried to get one of his friends, before filing the case, to talk some sense into him, perhaps you recall what happened with that. If his friend had listened instead of attacking me for pointing out that, in the end, ArbComm is watching (from the future), WMC might still be an admin.

Having been prepared by my basic education, with Richard P. Feynman and Linus Pauling as my first and second-year professors at California Institute of Technology, I spent a year becoming relatively expert in a topic, buying books, reading all the sources, on all sides, communicating and gaining the respect and cooperation of established scientists and other experts, and very carefully and patiently negotiating consensus on this topic, a difficult and unusual one, where misunderstanding is common, but recent (last five years) reliable sources are clear, putting in perhaps a thousand hours, and what did I get? A topic ban. From people who have no clue, who wouldn't spend a few minutes to read what I wrote and check it out or ask questions.

Not encouraging, eh? If it were just my story, that would be one thing, but go to Wikipedia Review and look around. It's a common story. Experts get banned, and it doesn't matter, in fact, if they have PhDs and credentials (which I don't have, just the respect of experts as perhaps an "advanced amateur"), if they aren't understood, and they do what experts normally do, explain the topic and expose errors and misunderstandings in the text, which often means the errors and misunderstandings of editors, they get banned. If, however, they agree with privileged editors, they don't get banned and they are even protected when they become seriously abusive to others. Who are sometimes themselves experts who disagree. And that is how Wikipedia bias is built, one block at a time.--Abd (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Feynman and Pauling at Caltech... You were lucky! When did I read them last time? Pauling. That was excellent explanation of entropy of fusion in hix textbook of inorganic chemistry. Feynman. Funny thing, but it were his memories. In particular, he explained how he picked up locks, just for fun, at a secret facility during the Manhatten project.Biophys (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pauling. Feynman. Yes, I heard those stories, later published, in person from him. He was really a very funny guy. The story was that he could drum 6 beats against 7. I was never able to do better than 4 to 5. His wife supposedly divorced him because he'd play the bongo drums at 3 AM. My sympathies to both of them.... One important thing that I learned from Feynman, in the physics lectures. Quantum mechanics is a beautiful theory, extremely accurate, but the math becomes impossible when moving beyond very simple two-body problems. Applying it to the solid state, where many bodies are involved, is at the edge of what we can do. By "we" I mean true experts, certainly not me, and the results are shaky. Feynman was very aware of the limits of our knowledge. --Abd (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that may be precisely the point. Did you notice that some of the most stubborn and dogmatic people are scientists? People like William are the rule, and people like Richard are exception. A lot of ordinary folks think they know something because they read about this in newspapers. A typical science student thinks he knows something because he read about this in a textbook. But in fact people know very little because they do not have predictive theories in almost all areas of knowledge except math and physics (just as Richard said). People can not reliably predict climate changes (beyond noticing something that already exist like the cycles), but they talk about global warming. They can not predict the consequences of global nuclear war, but invent propaganda "theories" like nuclear winter. People can not predict changes in society but invent pseudoscience like Marxism. They can not predict 3D structure of proteins but use molecular dynamics, which is only good to create a cartoon about a molecular Mickey Mouse. And they started to believe that Mickey Mouse actually exists because they saw his image. There is nothing you can fix here. All it takes is a couple of guys who believe that your opponent is right because they saw Mickey Mouse or read about him. That would not matter if they followed wikipedia policies. But they do not. Biophys (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Finally I understand where my bias for anthropogenic global warming comes from: I have been running molecular dynamics simulations of proteins for the past 5 years... :-) SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 16:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias for anthropogenic global warming? Splette, does this mean that you won't touch global warming articles? By the way, I'm also biased in favor of "anthropogenic global warming," i.e., my sense is that we are causing the current warming, and that it's very dangerous, but so what? This is an encyclopedia and neutrality is a fundamental policy. Almost all of us, and especially the knowledgeable, are very biased, so ... how can we determine neutrality? Hint: it's called consensus. And that doesn't mean "scientific consensus," though where that can be shown, we report it. It means that we seek consensus among editors and don't exclude anyone because of their POV. We can't reach article stability by banning one side. Banning the minority side is almost as bad as banning the majority, and I can show examples where both have happened. Both were a Bad Idea. Bans do not find consensus. They may reduce conflict, but editors capable of civil interactions and following behavioral guidelines, either directly or with personal guidance, shouldn't be banned if there is anyone capable and willing to provide the necessary guidance. Normally, a mediator supported by the administrative cabal could accomplish this, easily, if the mediator is sufficiently skilled. But, in fact, we've banned some skilled mediators, too! So there you go! --Abd (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, this has the potential for a looong discussion, I rather don't want to get into. In short: I believe the answer is WP:WEIGHT and my opinion is that in the global warming debate here on WP both sides are given due weight. When I say weight, I do mean the weight of the scientific positions, not the opinions of the general population who often have little clue about specific subjects ("hey, how can we have global warming if this is the coldest winter in decades...bla bla") and/or are often biased by the media (this is true in both directions: For example the prediction of an ice-free north pole by 2013 that got much media attention is also an extreme view and not consensus). Seeking consensus just among editors is problematic. Take the evolution article as an example. Many editors here are from the US where opinions about whether humans developed from earlier species or animals is split about 50/50[1]. If this was reflected by editors here, who try to form a consensus, how would the evolution article look like? For me this is the Randy in Boise problem and this is why I say an encyclopedia should reflect the state of scientific consensus.... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 03:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not telling that human activities do not lead to the warming. They do. But no one can reliably predict how exactly these activities, in combination with other factors, will affect temperature in city X in 2015. This is known as lack of predictive theories. Yes, a lot of people are doing MD. But can you reproduce the 3D structure of protein A starting from his homologue B, simply by MD simulations? According to my best knowledge, the answer is definitely "no". But then, what is the value of your research? Should you waste you time doing the simulations or better do something else? What exactly new did you learn by doing these particular simulations? If you want, we can debate it on my talk page. BTW, that is what some "scientists" do. Biophys (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to get into one of these long global warming debates here and I didn't mean to say that you do not believe in anthropogenic global warming. I just found it funny, that you mention this (the topic I edit most here at WP) and molecular dynamics in the same sentence. So, I couldn't resist to comment... :). I don't use MD for protein folding. I agree, there are many problems, though it is constantly improving and the main problem is still the limited time span you can simulate. Some small proteins have been successfully folded with MD, though as far as I can see, in these cases the aim wasn't to predict the structure (though that is the ultimate goal) but rather to better understand how protein folding works. Among other things I use MD as a quality check to test different atomistic models of proteins that have been proposed because no X-ray crystal structure could be obtained. Without MD it is very difficult to say, how stable/good such a model is. I do find MD very useful, though I understand and am very familiar with the skepticism of experimentalists about these computer simulations. But I think it completes the experimental techniques well, and just like any other method, it can be very useful if you are aware of its limits and know how to interpret your results... Anyway, I am afraid, I won't get into a longer chat here. I am at the end of my PhD and the deadline for handing in my thesis is in just a few weeks. So, I shouldn't even be here editing :) @Adb, sorry for spamming your talk page. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 04:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, where is article Criticism of global warming theory? 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming controversy, List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, Climate change denial SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 04:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Abd-William_M._Connolley William M. Connolley (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why, thanks, Bill. Kind of you to think of me and to give me an opportunity to address our Beloved ArbComm, though, gee, if I wasn't involved in a dispute with you, am I an "Originating Party"? I guess I am because you made me one. Why are you concerned? Do you have some kind of Agenda here? Are you shooting yourself in the foot again? Is this the best thing you can do with your time? If so, my condolences. Should I drop a tome on that page? Do you think that August Assembly will appreciate the opportunity to read more of my cogent, insightful, and, in fact, concise comment? (Concise is a relative term.) Do I have the time for this crap? So many questions, indeed, and so little time. --Abd (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Abd William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Two in a day? My, my, if I'd known that I could stir up such a fuss from a harmless comment in a poll, as I'm allowed to make, it seems, maybe I'd have had more fun before. Except that it is actually a waste of time and most of us have better things to do, here or elsewhere.

WMC, has it occurred to you that you are shooting yourself in the foot? You have nothing to gain here; on the other hand, if you goal is to be blocked, which I've suspected for some time, carry on. You may be doing an excellent job of setting up the conditions, demolishing whatever reputation you still had. Don't say, however, that you were not warned, just as you can't say I didn't warn you about the administrative bit loss thing.

Note: I'm not asking for sanctions against you, my suggestion that ArbComm advise you to stop harassing me is for your protection as well as the wiki's. You had no business with the AfD, and there is no ongoing disruption coming from my comment there except for what you have created. --Abd (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be a bother, but your comment on AN about GoRight seems to be a violation of your ban.--Tznkai (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,Tznkai. I'm seriously involved in the situation, it's central. It's all pretty moot, though, because I don't see any effort to actually resolve the situation, which is causing one RfAr after another, blocks, bans, desysopings or resignations, and which will continue to do so until faced and resolved. --Abd (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Reminder of editing restriction

Abd, I have removed your contribution from the GoRight ban discussion here. I am reminding you of your editing restriction, which states you are "prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls." You were neither an "originating party" of this block discussion, nor is a block discussion a "poll" (it's a consensus discussion; the mere fact that some people opt to prefix their opinion statements with a bolded word doesn't make it a poll). It therefore clearly falls under your restriction. I am, however, refraining from blocking you for this infraction for the moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, it appears, is only allowed by members of a smug local majority. Go away, Future Perfect. Your attempt to bully me is a waste of time. Read what I wrote that you removed. You are not neutral. --Abd (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it. His comment was not abusive, and he's actually been involved in the GoRight case for a while now (back when Raul654 tried to ban GoRight as part of his anti-GW-skeptic purge), long before any of the arbcom stuff happened. So his opinion is relevant here.

Abd: in the future, if you would like to make a point in a debate, feel free to leave it on my talk, and if I believe it to be relevant, I will add it. ATren (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be proxying for a banned user to circumvent an Arbcom restriction, so I would not recommend trying it. I would block you, and I will also block you if you reinstate Abd's posting once more in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No it would not be proxying. I am not banned, and I will evaluate the claim myself. Proxying doesn't ban ideas, only the expression of those ideas by certain editors.

Fut Per, you are involved here, and action on your part would not be appropriate. I restored the comment because it was relevant. Jeez, what is so bad about that comment that it must be suppressed? Do you ever take a step back and look at what you're doing? You aren't thought police, for goodness sake.

And for the record, Fut Per, I am now disengaging from this. You win. Abd's harmless comment has been successfully repressed. ATren (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)